Few thoughts on this piece by Shepherd gaaru. Won't link. Those really keen can Google.
He tries to draw a wedge between Brahmins as a representative of civilization of the book and Shudras as a civilization of the spade.
+
This is a very popular Marxist trope and there is so much irony there. Needs some elaboration.
"A book is not an instrument of civilisation building. On the other hand, the spade is an instrument with which civilisation is built" shepherd gaaru says.
+
So he says Outsider invader Aryan Brahminical Vedic civilization is a book civilization.
Pre-Vedic Harappan civilization is a spade civilization. Workers of the world, unite kind he imagines perhaps. Classless egalitarian utopia until evil wily Aryans came.
+
Firstly we weren't a book civilization. We were a civilization strongly anchored in oral literature and a strong focus on praxis. Practice.
And that Aryan outsider vs Indigenous spade civilization is a false dichotomy.
+
So long as Hindus believe in Chronological obsession no one can save them out of this. Sooner Hindus realise this the better.
+
Also this thing of dissing the 'Book' is quite rich coming from Shepherd gaaru.
Saar gets along with those who celebrate someone as an icon of sorts for umm errrr being part of writing a "book" called Constitution?
+
I have full respect for them all who were part of constitution writing. Don't get me wrong.
I believe in the power of intellectual labour. On the power of ideas. Good and bad.
Shepherd gaaru's stance is the one which is a bit ironic here.
+
That too coming from an academic whose sole claim to fame is that he also wrote umm err some "books"?
Underestimating the task of building, nurturing knowledge commons by someone from "intellectual" class is very ironic.
+
He asks:
"If Brahmins who memorised the Vedas were human libraries, what about those people who kept the whole production and construction knowledge in their memories and passed it on to several generations? Were the minds of Shudras, Dalits, or Adivasis not human libraries"
+
Now that is a fair question to ask. I support him there. The blame goes to this Indological/Colonial gaze which had a disdain for certain forms of knowledge.
"They" had a very Brahminical Sanskrit focussed understanding of Hinduism.
Not "us" Hindus.
+
Hindus acknowledge diversity in everything. We had so many pockets of various forms of knowledge across all forms of communities. Everyone had their sphere of influence and control.
+
E.P.Thompson wrote this in his book "The making of the English working class"
"Every weaving district had its weaver-poets, biologists, mathematicians, musicians, geologists, botanists"
+
Hindu India was also like what E P Thomson wrote above about pre-Industrial Britain.
Infact so many societies across the world were that way. Can provide enough references if needed.
+
You know another person who had a disdain for such? Your friend Karl Marx. He called Hindoo spinners and weavers as those who lived in semi-barbarian, semi-civilized communities.
+
He said destroying the economic base of these societies has heralded the only and greatest social revolution in Asia (India) so it is a good thing even if there was collateral damage. Anyway barbaric uncivilized existence they had so it's okay. That was his feeling perhaps.
+
So you ask those people saar on why they destroyed the Sudra human libraries and why they celebrated the destruction.
Will give you full support.
+
Shepherd gaaru that also reminds me of D.R.Nagaraj on your earlier books
"The theme of victims of the ‘machine-vaad’ should be taken up as seriously as we take the communities suffering under ‘manu-vaad’, at all levels of theory and practice"
+
I don't think you have elaborated on this Shephered gaaru. Why don't you do that. Will give full publicity for your book on that topic.
So please stop this spade civilization vs book civilization nonsense
+
Let's talk the real deal.
Who destroyed the Sudra human libraries and why?
Let's talk machine-vaad forget about manu-vaad for sometime. We will get there later.
D R Nagaraj is also sub-altern scholar vonly saar. He is also from spade civilization vonly.
+
I know you won't do it.
Because rozi roti ka maamla hain. Also I understand criticising Marx, criticising Machine-vaad and hence Europe-America who are paymasters for most activists and academics is tough.
+
No political mileage to be gotten either with such discourse either.
Ok saar. Thanks for triggering me with this Book vs Spade article.
Not sure on what grounds Hindu parents can argue against this of and when it comes to India.
At best I can think one minority religion may complain and Hindus will say why are you conservative? Look at us we are a liberal religion our religion accepts it all?
Don't think Hindus in India have any locus standi on such based on their faith. You have reformed your religion so much don't argue like you have non-negotiablles in your faith. You might as well reform for this also incase you have any religious issues on such.
+
And this discourse is perfectly fine per the other dominant religion of our time - Liberty and Equality. Most Hindus subscribe to that religion anyway. So nothing to object there as well.
I referred to this quote attributed to Wittgenstein recently. Worth elaborating in the context of the Rigveda.pdf worldview.
"Tradition is not something a man can learn; nor a thread he can pick up when he feels like it; any more than a man can choose his own ancestors"
+
Most non-missionary / non-proselytising religions operate this way. Even the proselytizing ones work this way for your progeny once you jump ship.
+
However in case of Hindus and other indigenous faiths world over there is no explicit urge to convert others. Hence no urge to codify or uniformize customs into a book based religion and say look here's the book. This is the entirety and essence of my faith.
"The fact is India that is Bharat has always been a pluralistic society" -
Yes but we never had or felt the need for a uniform code to sustain this pluralism as long as the King was Dharmic. No popular demand for uniformity existed ever.
Totalitarian big brother states need control and uniformity.
Not decentralised Dharmic constructs where the head of state can be a sovereign of sorts on top without being a control freak or indulging in micro management
+
The secular state tries to wrest control from religion(s) on the lives of people in the garb of defending individual rights and the autonomy of man. This is a problematic construct. It will only shrink the role of religion more as there is only so much room anyway!
I think we carry a very carefully constructed image of Adi Shankaracharya in popular Hindu psyche today which is very different from traditional commentary. Part of the blame is with the Indological discovery of Shankaracharya in early 18th/19th century or so.
Most traditional commentators are clear that Shankara Advaita style realisation isn't going to be possible for millions in same lifetime. They acknowledge it is not for everyone. The path exists. But not everyone can withstand the ordeal in same lifetime.
+
So they don't portray Shankaracharya discourse as some form of a "Individual is sovereign.This is Hindu liberalism" style construct.
Appreciate all these good folks keeping this kind of research for public access. Remember the times when I used to ask friends and family in universities for PDFs 😁
The Sadachara part is is a very Hindu innovation that constantly negotiated with diverse local customs and legitimised some, tolerated some and rejected some.
Multiplicity of Smritis also is a proof for the negotiation, tenacity, longevity etc.
+
Today what is happening is that the diversity of Sadachara is being used to portray this impression that - Look there is no one rule. You can do whatever you want.
Sadachara is not Swecchachara i.e, unconstrained freedom to say muh Hinduism muh wish.